From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more. |
Date: | 2020-04-17 20:39:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKMjKiLHCa69-9ySV8RU0Ws_EnNw5Lc3qKRP6aqORdv=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:19 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:37 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Then of course frozenXID can be advanced with eg update pg_database
> > set datallowconn = 't' where datname = 'template0', then vacuumdb
> > --freeze --all, and checked before and after with Robert's
> > pg_old_snapshot_time_mapping() SRF to see that it's truncated. But
> > it's not really the level of stuff we'd ideally mess with in
> > pg_regress tests and I don't see any precent, so I guess maybe I'll
> > need to go and figure out how to write some perl.
>
> The reason I put it in contrib is because I thought it would possibly
> be useful to anyone who is actually using this feature to be able to
> look at this information. It's unclear to me that there's any less
> reason to provide introspection here than there is for, say, pg_locks.
Makes sense. I was talking more about the
pg_clobber_snapshot_timestamp() function I showed, which is for use by
tests, not end users, since it does weird stuff to internal state.
> It's sorta unclear to me why you continued the discussion of this on
> this thread rather than the new one I started. Seems like doing it
> over there might be clearer.
I understood that you'd forked a new thread to discuss one particular
problem among the many that Andres nailed to the door, namely the xid
map's failure to be monotonic, and here I was responding to other
things from his list, namely the lack of defences against wrap-around
and the lack of testing. Apparently I misunderstood. I will move to
the new thread for the next version I post, once I figure out if I can
use pg_clobber_snapshot_timestamp() in a TAP test to check early
vacuum/pruning behaviour.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-04-17 21:17:54 | Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-17 20:22:26 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |